Australian Politics Forum

Gaybriel

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1191

Mohammedan
Nov 13^th, 2008 at 6:24pm

This is just a quick query for Soren, as to why you use the phrase 'Mohammedan' etc?

The only time I've really heard this used is in old Orientalist works, or in Edward Said's book about Orientalism

"Under the entry for Mohammed, d'Herbelot first supplied all of the Prophet's given names, then proceeded to confirm Mohammed's ideologica and doctrinal value as follows:

This famous imposter Mahomet, Author and Founder of a heresy, which has taken on the name of religion, which we call Mohammdan. See entry under Islam.
The interpreters of the Alcoran and other Doctors of Muslim or Mohammedan Law have applied to this false prophet all the praises which the Arians, Paulicians or Paulianists, and other Heretics hav attributed to Jesus Christ, while stripping him of his Divinity...

"Mohammedan" is the relevant (and insulting) European designation: "Islam", which happens to be the correct Muslim name, is relegated to another entry. The "heresy...which we call Mohammedan" is "caught" as the imitation of a Christian imitation of true religion....it is the placing of Mohammed that counts...The dangers of free-wheeing heresy are removed when it is transformed into ideologically explicit matter for an alphabetical item."

p. 65-66

and....

"Gibb's preference for the word Mohammedanism over Islam (since he says that Islam is really based upon an idea of apostolic succession culminating in Mohammed) and his assertion that the Islamic master science is law, which early on replaced theology. The curious thing about these statements is that they are assertions made about Islam, not on the basis of evidence internal to Islam, but rather on the basis of a logic deliberately outside Islam. No Muslim would ever call himself a Mohammedan..."

p.280

As my contact with this phrase is limited and within the context of Orientalist texts or critique- I am surprised to hear someone using it and am curious as to why?

Back to top

IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #1 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:05pm

Quote:

"Mohammedan" is the relevant (and insulting)

I think this is probably why he uses this term. He thinks he's insulting us, and we're going to be driven to making a 'fatwa' on him and expose ourselves as extremist fanatics

He only really does himself a disservice by using this term, because it just makes him appear petty and childish at best, or more likely, dishonourable.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gaybriel Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1191	Re: Mohammedan Reply #2 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:10pm to be honest when I read it it seems like it's an underhanded insult, a way to demean- but in fairness I thought I would ask the man himself!! hold on abu...you mean you haven't issued a fatwa?! tsk tsk- not living up to your duties are you?!
Back to top	IP Logged

Grendel Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 28080 Gender:	Re: Mohammedan Reply #3 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:19pm Don't you just love these little Muslim/Apologist get togethers?
Back to top	IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 48814
At my desk.

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #4 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:23pm

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:05pm:

Quote:

"Mohammedan" is the relevant (and insulting)

I think this is probably why he uses this term. He thinks he's insulting us, and we're going to be driven to making a 'fatwa' on him and expose ourselves as extremist fanatics

He only really does himself a disservice by using this term, because it just makes him appear petty and childish at best, or more likely, dishonourable.

John Safran managed to get a UK cleric to issue a fatwa on him. Yes it was childish, but it still reveals something very disturbing.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #5 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 7:30pm

Mohammedan points to the founder and the man followed. The term also paarallels 'Christian'.
It is a declension also used in other religious and non-religious group identifiers such as Methodist, Marxist, Anarchist and so forth.
It is no more insulting than any of these. Is there any insult in being identified as a partisan, a follower of Mohammed?

It is certainly not as insulting as the terms used by Mohammedans to denote the 'out' groups (me among them) - infidel, kuffr and so on.

Language can reveal as well as conceal. I am concious of its unveiling power. Your squirming uncomfortably only confirms it.

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver Gold Member Offline www.ozpolitic.com Posts: 48814 At my desk.	Re: Mohammedan Reply #6 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:06pm Who do the anarchists follow?
Back to top	People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words. IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #7 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:29pm

Islam is submission to the apostleship of Mohammed. Even the shahada is about Mohammed's centrality. It is really Mohammedanism.

Let's say, for argument's sake, that the whole of the Koran is God's word.

The Koran is about 150,000 words. The Sura (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 290,000 words, and the Hadith has 646,000 words (Bukhari ). So Allah is about 14% of the total of 'Muslim' scripture and the Sunna (Mohammed's words and deeds) is 86% of the total. This shows their comparative weight and importance.The Koran itself does not contain enough information to support the practice of even one of the Five Pillars of Islam.

Islam is about Mohammed. There are no riots about cartoons or artistic depictions of god, only Mohammed. There are no riots about Faust, about the Divine Comedy, about Paradise Lost, about the Sistine Chapel's depictions of god.
Only Mohammed matters.

Mohammedan is correct.

Back to top

IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: Mohammedan Reply #8 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:35pm Quote: The Sura (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 290,000 words The 'Sura'?? What is the 'Sura'? pray tell.. Do you even know what you're cutting and pasting? Or is it like the donkey that lugs the books of a scholar on his back...
Back to top	IP Logged

tallowood Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4991	Re: Mohammedan Reply #9 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:43pm Believe it or not 'Sura' is a short for Aleksandr in Ukrainian.
Back to top	Reality is a figment of imagination IP Logged

abu_rashid Gold Member Offline Aussie Muslim Posts: 8353	Re: Mohammedan Reply #10 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:48pm I can believe that, I can also believe soren wouldn't know the difference between Ibn Ishaq and Alexander...
Back to top	IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #11 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:02pm

abu_rashid wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:35pm:

Quote:

The Sura (by Ibn Ishaq) contains about 290,000 words

The 'Sura'?? What is the 'Sura'? pray tell..

Do you even know what you're cutting and pasting? Or is it like the donkey that lugs the books of a scholar on his back...

Sura, Sira, Sirat - whatever arabs call whatever Ibn Ishaq wrote. The life and times of Mohammed. The unauthorised biography. The authorised biography.

One more reason not to go with the arab terminology like 'Muslim'. Causes confusion. Let the arabs speak arabic.

So, here we go again, let mee correect myself:

The life and times and deeds of Mohammed (or sira, sura, sirat, schmirat or whatever you call what Ibn Ishaq wrote) - 290,000 words.

Do I need to spell out the pertinent point as well? Or have we now successfully shifted from the main point to the trivial garden path, yet again?

Do you understand the point I am making about the weight of the koran and the life and times of Mohammed literature? Do you undertandd the point about the proportions? 14-86 %.

Sound it out if it helps.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Mohammedan Reply #12 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:06pm freediver wrote on Nov 13^th, 2008 at 8:06pm: Who do the anarchists follow? The same thing headless chucks follow.
Back to top	IP Logged

abu_rashid

Gold Member

Offline

Aussie Muslim

Posts: 8353

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #13 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:10pm

Quote:

The life and times and deeds of Mohammed (or sira, sura, sirat, schmirat or whatever you call what Ibn Ishaq wrote) - 290,000 words.

Seerah just means Biography, and is not a specific book Ibn Ishaq wrote, many biographers wrote Seerahs of Muhammad (pbuh), so they're certainly not limited to 290,000 words.

But the Seerahs are just the stories from Hadiths, arranged into a biographical/historical sequence of events.. So mentioning their word counts in ADDITION to the Hadiths is just plain wrong.

Nevermind though, because your entire post is based on a false premise, that each Islamic text is merely weighed up according to the number of it's words. It completely discounts the primacy of the Qur'an... Anyway... back to the drawing board I guess, or a few more hours of googling for scholars books to lload onto your back

So lets see, so far soren's failed attempts to justify his use of the term Mohammedan:

1) Muhammad (pbuh) is mentioned so much in the Qur'an (proven incorrect, Jesus (pbuh) is mentioned more, and Moses (pbuh) even more).

2) The "Sura" [sic] and the Hadith have more words in them than the Qur'an... (Seerah is just a rewording and aggregation of hadiths into historical sequence, and primacy of Qur'an dispel this).

3) Still to come, stay tuned!

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Mohammedan
Reply #14 - Nov 13^th, 2008 at 9:21pm

Mohammedan points to the founder and the man followed. The term also paarallels 'Christian'.
It is a declension also used in other religious and non-religious group identifiers such as Methodist, Marxist, Anarchist and so forth.
It is no more insulting than any of these. Is there any insult in being identified as a partisan, a follower of Mohammed?

It is certainly not as insulting as the terms used by Mohammedans to denote the 'out' groups (me among them) - infidel, kuffr and so on.

Language can reveal as well as conceal. I am concious of its unveiling power. Your squirming uncomfortably only confirms it.

Back to top

IP Logged